INTRODUCTION
Fundamental Rights are the Rights which are guaranteed to every citizen of India by the virtue of Part III of the Constitution. These Rights were deemed essential to protect the rights and liberties of people against the encroachment of the power delegated by them to their Government. Part III of the Constitution has very well been described as the Magna Carta of India.
Fundamental Rights are available only against State and its instrumentalities and not against private individuals. Therefore, it is very crucial to understand the meaning of State in the light of Fundamental Rights.
MEANING OF STATE UNDER ARTICLE 12
Article 12 defines the term ‘State’ as used in different Articles of Part III of the Constitution. It says that unless the context otherwise requires the term ‘State’ includes:
1. The Government and Parliament of India, ie., Executive and Legislative of the Union
2. The Government and the Legislature of each State, ie., Executive and legislature of States
3. All local or other authorities within the territory of India
4. All local and other authorities under the control of the Government of India
The term ‘State’ thus includes executive as well as the legislative organs of the Union and States. It is, therefore, the actions of these bodies that can be challenged before the courts.
Hence, State includes the President of India, Lower House and Upper House of Parliament, the law implementing body, ie., Governor, Cabinet Ministers Police etc, the law enacting body, ie., the legislature and the law enforcing body,ie., judiciary.
It also includes local and other authorities. Here, Authority as per Webster’s Dictionary means: a person or body exercising power to command. For the purpose of Article 12, authority means power to make laws, orders, regulations, bye-laws etc. which have the force and power to enforce these laws.
Local authorities as defined in Section 3(31) of General Clauses Act, 1897 refers to authorities like Municipalities, District Boards, Improvement Trust and Mining Settlement Boards, Port Trusts, Cantonment Boards, Townships etc. In the case of Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab(1991) it was laid down that village Panchayats are also included in local authorities.
In Union of India v. R.C. Jain(1981), the Supreme Court ruled that the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) is a “local authority.” This landmark case established a 5-point test for determining if a body qualifies as a local authority under Article 12 of the Constitution.The Court observed that for an entity to be a local authority under the General Clauses Act, it must possess the following attributes:
- Separate Legal Existence: The entity must have its own independent corporate/statutory identity distinct from the Central or State Government.
- Defined Local Area: It must function in a specifically defined territorial or local area.
- Popular Representation: There must be an element of democratic representation, allowing local residents to participate in its governance.
- Appreciable Autonomy: The body must enjoy significant autonomy or self-rule, functioning independently without being a mere departmental extension of the government.
- Municipal Functions & Taxing Power: It must be entrusted by statute with functions usually entrusted to municipalities (e.g., civic administration) and possess the power to raise funds independently through taxes, rates, or fees.
Other authorities hasn’t been defined in any Statute but interpreted from time to time by the judiciary.
In the case of P.D Shamdasani v. Central Bank of India (1951) it has held by the Supreme Court that a petitioner can sought remedy under Article 32 only when State infringes their rights and not private bodies. Here, the petitioner’s share were sold by Central Bank of India to recover the debts owned by him. This was challenged on the ground if being violative of Article 19 and Article 31(now omitted). The SC dismissed the petition because at that time, the Central Bank of India was a private Bank.
In University of Madras v. Shantabai (1954) , the Madras High Court held that ‘other authorities’ could indicate authorities of like nature, is., ejusdem generis. So, it could mean authorities exercising governmental or sovereign functions. It could not mean persons, natural or juristic, such as University unless maintained by the State.
In Ujjammbai v. State of Uttar Pradesh(1962), the court gave a liberal interpretation and rejected the restrictive interpretation given by Madras High Court and held that ejusdem generis rule could not be restored to in interpreting this expression. In Article 12, the bodies specifically named have no common genus running through these named bodies nor these bodies can be placed in one single category on a rational basis.
In Electricity Board, Rajasthan v. Mohan Lal(1967), the Supreme Court laid that the expression ‘other authorities’ shall include all bodies which are created by Constitution or Statute on whom power is conferred by law. This gave the term wider interpretation and later on the Patna High Court following the decision of Supreme Court, held that the Patna University is a “State”
Later, in subsequent decisions the Supreme Court gave a more broad and liberal interpretation to the expression ‘other authorities’ in Article 12. As the role of State is changing from a mere police State to a welfare State, it becomes necessary to widen the scope so as to include all bodies which, though not created by Constitution or Statute, acts as agency or instrumentality of the Government.
TEST OF INSTRUMENTALITY
In R.D Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India(1979) , could laid down indicators to determine whether a body is an instrument of State. This case created a functional test which was later solidified in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi(1981).
To determine whether a body qualifies as “other authority” (and thus the “State” under Article 12), courts use these six specific indicators:
- Financial Control: Does the State’s financial assistance cover nearly all of the corporation’s expenses?
- Government Shareholding: Is the share capital of the corporation wholly or heavily held by the Government?
- Monopoly Status: Does the corporation enjoy a state-conferred or state-protected monopoly status?
- Deep and Pervasive Control: Is there significant and extensive State control over its administration and operations?
- Governmental Functions: Are the functions of the body of public importance and closely linked to essential governmental functions?
- Transferred Department: Was a pre-existing department of the government transferred to the corporation?
However, the Court held that these tests are not conclusive but illustrative only and would have to be used with care and caution.
This test was utilized and many bodies such as Corporation, Registered Society, Government Company, etc were held to be agency or instrumentality of Government.
DOES THE JUDICIARY COMES WITHIN THE MEANING OF ‘STATE’?
In American Constitution it is well settled that judiciary is within the prohibition of the 14th Amendment but in Indian Constitution nothing has been said in this regard.
The judiciary performs both judicial and non-judicial (administrative) functions. In Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra(1966), the Supreme Court held that while exercising its judicial functions, the courts are not considered “State” under Article 12, and therefore their judicial orders cannot ordinarily be challenged as violating fundamental rights under Article 32.Therefore when courts decide cases and deliver judgements, they are not considered ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12. However, when the judiciary performs non-judicial or administrative functions, such as appointments, disciplinary matters, or rule-making, it falls within the meaning of “State” under Article 12. In Riju Prasad v. State of Assam(2015), this distinction between judicial functions and non-judicial functions was reiterated by courts.
This position was clarified in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak(1988). In this case, the Supreme Court had earlier directed that the criminal trial of A.R. Antulay, former Chief Minister of Maharashtra, be transferred from the Special Judge to the High Court. Antulay challenged this direction, contending that it deprived him of his statutory right to be tried by the Special Judge. The Court acknowledged that its earlier judicial order had violated his fundamental rights, particularly the right to procedure established by law under Article 21, and recalled its own order. The case established that although courts are generally not “State” while exercising judicial functions, judicial orders that violate fundamental rights are open for correction.
CONCLUSION
Article 12 plays crucial role in respect of Fundamental Rights as it interprets the definition of State. The judiciary from time to time has widened the scope of State to meet changing governance structures, ensuring constitutional accountability. As public functions continue to expand, Article 12 remains dynamic constitutional tool for safeguarding individual rights.
